Union National Bank of Chicago, Respondent v. Elizabeth J. Chapman, Apellant, Impleaded With Others

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's judgment, holding that the capacity of Mrs. Chapman to act as a surety was governed by Alabama law, which prohibited a wife from being a surety for her husband, rendering the note void. The court applied the rule that the law of the place where a contract is executed determines its validity and capacity, finding no intent to apply another state's law. A dissent argued that Illinois law should govern because the contract became operative only when negotiated there. The majority ordered a new trial.